The Rolling Stone on Schmidt
When was the last time you read something this good in the Enquirer? Makes you proud the Enquirer actually endorsed Schmidt over Wulsin. Politics aside, why is it whenever the outside press reports from Cincinnati, the stories are better reported, better written and more compelling to read that what we get from the Enquirer?
posted by Newsache at 1:15 PM
6 Comments:
What's sad is that you write this crap as dozens of your comrades are working their asses off on election day. Pitch in and help, brother. Or leave the business. It's tough. Deal with it.
More pie in the sky dreaming that the Enquirer will ever become a showcase of anything literary beyond Paul Daugherty and the parade of goofball letter writers who have unimpeded access to the pages uninhabited by any intelligent editor-written opinion. It's a spineless newspaper, pure and simple. It couldn't be doing a better job of giving away the franchise. If only someone would step up and take it.
I'm not sure describing a politician as "a Gerry Ford with tits" qualifies as good writing.
But I do wish the Enquirer's writers would try a little harder, and not talk down to us.
To anonymous No. 1: I am helping. The Enquirer has few critics in this city. Gannett expects you to take what they give you and like it. The people who work at the Enquirer work very hard, I agree. But the people who run this paper haven't cared what readers think of it in 30 years.
To nasty: True, not every word of the Rolling Stone article was perfect. But writing has been edited out of the Enquirer. It has no flavor and no sensation. It's very dull.
I totally agree with you about the need for good critics. Writing is what gets people to read.
If I were running the show, I'd hire Cathy Wilson and I'd pick up Mark Steyn's syndicated column. He's absolutely fantastic.
What's the scoop in the inside? Are the writers caged birds, waiting to sing? Is the problem really with the editing?
NB&S,
As someone who has seen the inner workings of The Enquirer, there are not a lot of "caged birds" there. Most of the reporters are lazy, and the editorial interference just adds to the problems.
A few are good at their jobs, though, but have become embittered at management. Why they would prefer to stew in their own juices instead of retaining some integrity and looking for work elsewhere is beyond me.
The fat paychecks, good benefits and (relative) job security are a soothing or numbing balm, I suppose.
Post a Comment
<< Home